Not necessarily, and I might even argue not normally. There’s a major issue with the assumption of a “mandate” that comes with an election when people are voting for “Not Hillary” and “Not Trump” (or “Not ____”), and it seems that a lot of people do precisely that. The only mandate that can be assumed in that situation is that the majority of people that voted didn’t want the candidate that lost.
Perhaps you are right. However, with Republican controlling 31 state legislators vs 11 for the Democrats, 31 Governorships, 54 Senate seats, and 247 House seats, I think its very unlikely that all or even the majority of these races were because they were voting against the other person.
Miramon
4444
If Trump loses in the general election it will be claimed (legitimately for a change) that he’s “not a real conservative” and “republican in name only” so I doubt the party will do anything different at all in the subsequent term. It will be another 4-8 years of paralysis and divisiveness punctuated by terrorism and economic crises.
And as we’ve discussed, elections in the House are currently based on gerrymandered insanity competitions. Even the hypocrites there can’t change their tune or compromise during their terms because House terms are so short, so they are locked into their crazy-stupid platforms and policies forever. Since the House is where the GOP’s power comes from, the party tendency towards stupidity and backbiting won’t change until the they somehow lose their majority anyway, which is sadly unlikely any time soon.
The RINO designation comes about because of (arguably) voting records and such. Trump is running and messaging a right-wing campaign. I don’t understand how anyone could paint him with the RINO moniker when he has no record—just his message. If he loses, it’s either a rejection of his message or, very arguably, a rejection of Trump, the person.
I don’t see how the far-right wing of the party can rationale claim that a more right-wing candidate would have won if Trump loses (which was said about both McCain and Romney)—they’ve been living on “coulda been” excuses. Now, they can, of course, be irrational.
“Not really a conservative” is exactly the criticism of Trump that I hear from my Iowan Republican friend. He supports Cruz.
Miramon
4447
Trump is a RINO because he used to be a Democrat. Used to be friends with the Clintons. Has never worked as a party member, has never held office. That’s more than enough to dismiss him once he loses.
Timex
4448
Trump is running and messaging a right-wing campaign.
Not really. It’s got elements of extreme right wing stuff, but he’s also got elements of stuff which has no place in conservative thought. His crazy statements espousing protectionist crap like massive tariffs on imports, for instance.
His message has very little of substance when it comes to conservatism. It’s more like some screwed up pseudo populist crap.
And that of course doesn’t even get into his past statements before he was running in the Republican primary
JonRowe
4449
It is surprising that the other GOP candidates haven’t gone hard on him, as his past is basically as clinton level democrat as you can get. I know that the reason nobody is attacking him is because they know that the public, and trump’s supporters will shoot the messenger, and pick another GOP candidate to vote for.
This was the same logic around the time of the Tea Party’s rise: the only way to get the RINOs out is to lose an election.
There’s truth to that. Politicians only respond to pain. But there hasn’t been much change except at the margins. (YMMV if you think the Tea Party bogeyman is all-powerful and ruining what would otherwise be unicorns and rainbows.)
The problem with the GOP is they still lack a coherent vision/foundation/philosophy, and may never have had one.
I would consider that there is significant gerrymandering going on, and the nature of those races are quite often extremely different than Presidential campaigns. State races are almost entirely dominated by Republicans, thanks in large part to DNC ineptitude and failure to acknowledge the importance of those races. That doesn’t mean that the majority of the people want “Republican ideals” (whatever that may mean to any given person).
Scuzz
4452
Well obviously the Democrats have some very bad people running for those offices. I mean it must be the individuals and not the philosophy, right?
Scuzz
4453
They will just claim Trump was a candidate of personality, not a candidate of the party. And they will be right. Although I doubt a candidate of the party would do any better.
It’s definitely the philosophy, but it’s also the divide between state and federal policies, particularly for social equality and social welfare issues. For social equality, states frankly have little impact on things. Our social policies are driven at the federal level. A state governor isn’t going to have a major impact, one way or the other, on issues like abortion rights.
Similarly, while democrats favor social welfare, they want it practically implemented at a federal level: i.e., we all share the pain of helping the less fortunate. They don’t want their local state to be disproportionately paying for it. That lets GOP candidates focus on the strengths of fiscal conservatism at the state level. Of course, as Michigan shows, you can be too much of a cheap-ass.
Put another way, the major/emotional pressure points of democrats are affected by federal policy.
But that’s effectively an admission that only personality got him to the current level of success. It isn’t the policy that’s doing it, even for the GOP voters. Yes, having Ben Carson nominated and then getting trounced in the general would prove the point even better, but there’s zero chance of that.
Scuzz
4456
I am not an expert on how it works but at some point (don’t they start well before the convention?) the GOP will start working on a party platform. It will be interesting to see how much of what Trump campaigned on ends up in that document, if he gets the nomination.
RichVR
4457
I would go as far as saying that I bet that the GOP is actively working toward scuttling Trump before that happens.
ShivaX
4458
Obviously the solution is to not help Track at all, because it might cost money. Oh wait, that’s the position of Palin’s party.
I think having Cruz nominated and going down to a crushing defeat, might convince some of the right wingers leaders (like maybe Rush, or Hannity) that you can’t nominate an ultra-conservative and win the Presidency. You need independents and even a few Democrats. I won’t vote for Cruz, but I’ll feel a tiny bit guilty when I vote for the libertarian guy. I suspect that very few active Republican (meaning those of us who write checks and volunteer) won’t vote for Cruz.
But, I don’t believe Trump is a Republican, much less a conservative, so I will gladly vote for whomever the Democrats nominate to prevent him from being becoming President. I am sure Trump has the unique ability to mobilize active Republicans to vote for Democrat. He probably also has the unique ability to turn out folks who are nominally Democrats, to vote for him.
I don’t know what lesson the Republicans would learn if they nominated Trump and he lost badly.
ShivaX
4461
One would hope they’d learn that it’s the end result of their plans, but I’m sure they’d instead go the “wasn’t a Real Conservative” route and not change anything.
